jury nullification

[Apotheosis]

looks like i might be up for jury duty... anyone able to tell me more about this concept of jury nullification?

robert anton wilson had a great point about it, and i'd like to know more about this option as a prospective juror.

[Warriorbird]

Not speaking as an attorney.... you can choose to nullify if you disagree with the law but the judge generally isn't able to give an instruction regarding it. There are a few other barriers set up against the concept.

[Abyran'sa]

Basically, Jury nullification is the process by which a jury returns a not guilty verdict for a defendant whom the jurors believe is guilty. The fifth amendment then leaves the government powerless to reprosecute. The rationale is that some criminal convictions may be so socially undesirable that this ability is a way for juries to act as a community safeguard.

Generally, juries have power of nullification, but not the right to nullify. Thus, few courts will ever allow for the any arguments mentioning nullification, or jury instructions/charges on the issue. It is fine for a court to instruct a jury 'if you find that X did Y, then you must find X guilty even if you disagree with the law'. The power to nullify lurks beneath the surface, but jurors are still expected to properly apply the law.

Jury nullification isn't something that should come up often. It really comes into play when there are poorly written laws that end up having unintended consequences. For example, if there was some mandatory prosecution law for violence caused by battle axes. Then a pregnant woman uses a sword in her home to fight off a potential burglar, and because she sliced up the bad guy, the law is triggered requiring her to be charged under the mandatory battle axe prosecution provision. This is not something the legislature intended, but an unintended result from the proper legal application of the law.* This is the sort of situation where jury nullification is useful.

* Not a real fact pattern, and I know there are problems with it, but it is a quick example.

Sereg's puppeteer

[Apotheosis]

i wonder if mentioning jury nullification during the selection process will help me get out of duty.

[Abyran'sa]

If you don't want to serve, simply let the judge know that you will be unable to be fair and impartial in the case due to [Blank]. Due note that you must be completely honest to the court. Admitting under oath to the court of having a bias preventing you from giving the defendant a fair trial on the basis of the the defendant's sex/race/religion/nationality will get you removed from the jury nearly every time.

But, I strongly encourage you to serve. Most folks who actually sit on a jury are glad that they did, and it is a great way of accomplishing some pro bono work.

[Apotheosis]

If you don't want to serve, simply let the judge know that you will be unable to be fair and impartial in the case due to [Blank]. Due note that you must be completely honest to the court. Admitting under oath to the court of having a bias preventing you from giving the defendant a fair trial on the basis of the the defendant's sex/race/religion/nationality will get you removed from the jury nearly every time.

But, I strongly encourage you to serve. Most folks who actually sit on a jury are glad that they did, and it is a great way of accomplishing some pro bono work.

I served on a court before.. took a whole day (yeah, I know, boo hoo)..

defendant ended up settling before the jury had a chance to make a ruling... we basically knew the defendant was a POS.. I mean, after the case was basically laid out... the defense tried to drag the case on by going through irrelevant material..

Clearly the defendant admitted to being a shithead on the stand, but basically didn't see anything wrong with the way he screwed over the plaintiff.. it was kinda funny..

but yeah.. i'll probably end up serving if selected.

[TheRunt]

Generally, juries have power of nullification, but not the right to nullify. Thus, few courts will ever allow for the any arguments mentioning nullification, or jury instructions/charges on the issue. It is fine for a court to instruct a jury 'if you find that X did Y, then you must find X guilty even if you disagree with the law'. The power to nullify lurks beneath the surface, but jurors are still expected to properly apply the law.

I'll disagree with you that juries don't have the right. And so would the first chief justice of SCOTUS.

Chief Justice John Jay said: "It is
presumed, that juries are the best judges of facts; it is,
on the other hand, presumed that courts are the best
judges of law. But still both objects are within your
power of decision." "...you have a
right to take it upon yourselves to judge of both,
and to determine the law as well as the fact in controversy"

http://www.fija.org/docs/jurors_handbook_a_citizens_guide_to_jury_duty.pdf


i wonder if mentioning jury nullification during the selection process will help me get out of duty.

I would almost guarantee it.

And a couple of links about jury nullification.
http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/zenger/nullification.html
http://www.isil.org/resources/lit/history-jury-null.html
http://www.fija.org/index.php?page=documents&sectionid=31&display=files

[Warriorbird]

There's been a fair bit of jurisprudence regarding it since, unfortunately for folks in favor of it (and I'm not entirely against it.)

[TheRunt]

One of the funniest stories I've heard about it sorry I can't find the link off-hand. Was this mother who was putting fliers on cars during jury selection about it because her son was on trial. She was arrested for I think attempted tampering with a jury but the charges were dismissed because the prosecutors couldn't figure out how to prove she was tampering with a jury without showing the fliers to the jury and informing them of it. :rofl:

[Keller]

Trial Law 101:

The judge determines the law.

The jury determines the facts.

Jury Nullification:

The jury, not agreeing with the judge's interpretation of the law, returns a factual conclusion in order to overrule the judge's interpretation of the law.

Example: A is trespassing on B's land. B has an old wooden bridge over a deep gorge. A tries to cross the bridge, but it is rotten and he falls to the bottom and dies.

A's family sues B. The judge, instructing the jury on the law, tells the jury that B has a duty to protect anticipated tresspassers from all highly danergous concealed conditions on B's property that are known to B.

There is significant testimony, such that the jury believes it, that B knew the bridge to be rotten to the extent that it could not hold the weight of a human being.

The jury, knowing that B should be found negligent for not putting up a warning sign for A's benefit, thinks that the law is wrong (that B does NOT owe that duty to anticipated tresspassers) and, as a factual matter, finds that B did NOT know that the bridge was rotten.

[Jorddyn]

Trial Law 101:

The judge determines the law.

The jury determines the facts.

Jury Nullification:

The jury, not agreeing with the judge's interpretation of the law, returns a factual conclusion in order to overrule the judge's interpretation of the law.

Example: A is trespassing on B's land. B has an old wooden bridge over a deep gorge. A tries to cross the bridge, but it is rotten and he falls to the bottom and dies.

A's family sues B. The judge, instructing the jury on the law, tells the jury that B has a duty to protect anticipated tresspassers from all highly danergous concealed conditions on B's property that are known to B.

There is significant testimony, such that the jury believes it, that B knew the bridge to be rotten to the extent that it could not hold the weight of a human being.

The jury, knowing that B should be found negligent for not putting up a warning sign for A's benefit, thinks that the law is wrong (that B does NOT owe that duty to anticipated tresspassers) and, as a factual matter, finds that B did NOT know that the bridge was rotten.

Go go gadget jury. That's a stupid law.